Malicious addition

I must take exception to the newly added link to a page questioning whether Metropolitan John is "Orthodox." It is one thing to disagree with him or any other hierarch and theologian; it is quite another to post an offensive polemical piece like this. And it further slurs Western Christians as "Arians." --Fr Lev 19:15, May 28, 2007 (PDT)

Hi Fr. Lev, I'm inclined to agree with you about the tone of the article. I'm happy to have the kind of dialectic give and take though, since it characterizes so much of church life. I wonder if we can find another article with more intelligent criticisms? — FrJohn (talk)

I agree. I did not write what I did because I think Metropolitan John is the cat's pajamas when it comes to dogmatic theology (I don't). But when "heresy" starts getting tossed around, and when his theology is called "deceiftful," and when Western Christianity is all tarred with the heretical brush of Arianism, I think we have left he realm of the encyclopedic. --Fr Lev 04:07, May 29, 2007 (PDT)

I've removed the link. Links critical of particular subjects are fine, but the one in question is really simply a series of unsourced, undocumented assertions without any real examination of Metr. John's theology or writings. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs 05:35, May 29, 2007 (PDT)

I protest removal of the link. Various opinions need to be expressed freely. It is obvioius that contradicting opinions on Zliziouilas' works exist. In what fashion are these unfavorable opinions allowed to be presented here?

I'm not sure what to do now. Should I get the link bank, since nobody bothered to answer my question for two weeks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soko.tica (talk • contribs) .

The cited article is, however, of dubious theological knowledge, considering that it calls the western Christianity to be 'Arians' - it's obviously not Arian (for all the wrong that the filioque is, it is impossible to hold the filioque and consider Jesus to be any less than God). Ultramontanism, different story.

Really, given the quality of the article, all that can be said is that that the editorial staff of Italia Ortodossia have issues - which really isn't all that significant. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at

All “academic reasons” for removal you provided here are merely your own opinions. You will have to prove your academicism to us before you can claim “academic reasons” for removal. Until then, reference is back. Cebactokpatop 08:40, March 6, 2008 (PST)

More malice as per private opinion of user Fr. Lev; More academic sources of scriticism as per user Cebactokpatop

Most of what is listed under "academic criticism" would not pass muster in a community college, must less a serious university or theological institute. This is simply an attempt to discredit a highly-regarded bishop and theologian of the Orthodox Church. Trying to establish the credentials of the Italian magazine is comical, especially when the writer seeks to establish the credibility of the magazine's director because his books are listed on a website along with Lossky, etc. I tried cleaning up some of the obvious polemical language, but this kind of sniping doesn't befit an encyclopedia -- it belongs, if anywhere, in polemical magazines such as the one being listed here to criticize Metropolitan John. --Fr Lev 06:15, February 28, 2008 (PST)

Thank you for your opinion. However, calling those who do not accept innovations of J.Z. – “malicious”, would not muster community college, university or theological institute either. If he is “highly regarded” by his followers, he is also considered heterodox by those who recognize his work as non-compliant with the Orthodox Tradition. Fact that he is still member of the Orthodox clergy, does not classify his work as Orthodox automatically. Cebactokpatop 08:13, February 28, 2008 (PST)

I used the word "malice" on this talk page, not in an article that is supposed to maintain the neutrality of an encyclopedia. The tone of the descriptions of the various articles criticizing Metropolitan John were decidedly NOT academic or neutral in tone. BTW, he is highly regarded by most Orthodox who know his work. That doesn't mean they agree with him or are his "followers." I don't consider myself one of the latter, but I respect his work and consider it well within the Orthodox tradition. --Fr Lev 09:22, February 28, 2008 (PST)

They may not be academic as per your own standards. However, what constitutes academic resource and opinion is the academical position of the person making the statement, not his rhetoric and terminology. Should I remind you on the language Christ used when referring to the fallen people of Israel? Or, perhaps the language used by Holy Fathers on Ecumenical Councils? Contemporary man appears to be ashamed of tagging the disease with the proper wording, but is, interestingly enough, ready to judge those who are not ashamed. In the light of the above, I will appeal to you to remove your tagging of the Traditional Orthodox as “malicious” from this page. Thank you for your consideration.

BTW: Opinions of those people are clearly designated as “criticisms”, and it is not of a surprise if they are not neutral.

Much of the criticism section appears to be in the Wikipedia format rather than OrthodoxWiki's. Credit for any material from Wikipedia needs to be referenced, and links need to be updated or removed. See OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Importing). —magda (talk) 10:32, February 28, 2008 (PST)

Sorry about the formatting. I am more knowledgeable about the Wikipedia's formatting than about the OrthodoxWiki's. That is why material appears to be from there. Even if there is a similarity with some references placed on Wiki, they are result of my work and there is no need for any credits. I will read the link you provided, and try to make the additions compliant with the OrthodoxWiki’s standards. I also welcome other users to come and format the additions as necessary.

If you submit material to Wikipedia, it is released under the terms of Wikipedia's GFDL license. This means that, even though you are the author, if you copy that material here, then you have to credit Wikipedia, which in some sense now "owns" all submissions made to it, at least in terms of the credit needed to be given in accordance with its licensing. In other words, contributors can't release their contributions and then take them back.

In brief: If you put stuff on Wikipedia first and then copy it here, cite Wikipedia appropriately. It doesn't matter who wrote it originally.

By the way, just as a friendly admonition: Your tone seems very much to bear with it an Agenda. Agendas don't make for good encyclopedia writing.

It is of course true that the Lord and the Ecumenical Councils often used very strong language when leveling criticism. They were not, however, writing an encyclopedia. OrthodoxWiki represents and describes criticism. It doesn't promote it. Descriptions of criticism (and all controversial material) also need to come from reputable, third-party sources, however, and it also needs to be notable (i.e., not representing only the opinion of an extreme minority, no matter how Right They May Feel They Are). —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 14:22, February 29, 2008 (PST)

Material is not copied. I appreciate your detailing on how to relate to the material on Wikipedia. Will have that im mind in the future. As for "agenda" stands... I do not think that there is a single person on this planet without agenda. We can only talk about various agendas here. Having "ecyclopedia styled" article without existing criticisms is negation of the encyclopedic goal - revealing the current state of the subject. I have already said that someone should add positive assessments of the work of J.Z. My agenda is not to promote the criticism, but to make the public aware of it's existence. Your point about "extreme minorities" remind me of the Apostles who were extreme minority at the beginning of the Church, and were at the same time, extremely right in the matters of the Faith. Is tagging of the entire Orthodox community in Italy as "minority" acceptable? Is tagging of the valid academic critics, and us who want them to be part of this article, as "malice" acceptable? Does it represent a good faith?

I'm not sure if the most of your post is a complete straw man attack or just a related fallacy: an Agenda as something that doesn't let you write in an encyclopaedic tone is adequately explained here; the Apostles and their supporters (if we can regard them as a homogenous block, which the Council in Acts shows was not always and at all times the case) were in the distinct majority in the Church; the faithful in Italy are not being attacked in any way; the magazine is simply not a credible academic source - that article alone holds an out-and-out untruth. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 15:28, March 5, 2008 (PST)

I appreciate your private opinion when you say: "the magazine is simply not a credible academic source", but, it is uncontested within the radius of your own skull only. Outside of that radius, it is opened to the acceptance and rejection. In order to have that private opinion of yours accepted, you will have to provide valid academic resources denouncing subject magazine. Cebactokpatop 10:40, March 6, 2008 (PST)

Warning regarding User Cebactokpatop

I want to warn those of you who edit on Orthodoxwiki that the user Cebactokpatop is a single-purpose account on Wikipedia, whose purpose in editing is to discredit Metropolitan John of Pergamon in the name of a supposedly 'traditional Orthodoxy'. (Although he does not make clear who today holds to this 'traditional Orthodoxy'.) You can see the debate on the talk page of the John Zizioulas article on wikipedia, as well as on Cebactokpatop's own wikipedia talk-page.

Cebactokpatop has been blocked twice on Wikipedia for edit-warring, and two complaints regarding personal attacks and incivility have been upheld against him. To give you an idea, here is one of his more unpleasant attacks:
"If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted."[1]

I don't want to get involved in the debate on Orthodoxwiki. But I hope you keep this article clean of defamatory POV remarks and links to extremist or dubious articles.

Warning regarding user “Seminarist”

I want to warn those of you who edit on Orthodoxwiki that the user Seminarist is a proven liar whose falsehood on Wikipedia is being documented on a mentioned talk page [2]. He continues with his lies even here, stating: “two complaints regarding personal attacks and incivility have been upheld against him”, which is yet another notorious lie.

That user is heavy promoter of the falsehood of J.Z. and he is not choosing the methods to suppress voice of the Traditional Orthodox people who recognize the falsehood of J.Z. and his followers. As we can see from the example of user “Seminarist”, they are not refraining from using open lies, in order to support their quest.

Your accusations of lying are false, as can be verified by consulting the page to which you link. And here is a diff from Wikipedia which shows two complaints upheld against you, each marked 'Resolved. User blocked and warned about edit warring.' I am not lying here, and it is, at the very least, disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

And for the record, I am not an advocate of Zizioulas' ecclesiology, as you claim. My concern is that vitriolic and malicious criticism of a Metropolitan of the Ecumenical Patriarchate not be posted on wiki articles which are meant to be encyclopedic. Seminarist 09:56, March 5, 2008 (PST)

You are continuing with your disgraceful behavior here, besides the Wikipedia. Because of your unreasonable behavior that several times violated Wiki’s HONESTY, I was forced to file for informal mediation on the J.Z. article. My blocks on the Wikipedia were result of your disgraceful behavior as I had to keep removing your malicious edits. They were not result of calling you the name you fully deserve – a liar. Fact that Wiki’s moderators did not ban me from accessing the site is best proof that they have seen your lies, and did nothing as they realized what kind of the character you are.

In fact, you were banned for repeatedly reverting the name of a picture of Zizioulas seated beside the Pope from the NPOV description I had given it ('Metropolitan John of Pergamon and Pope Benedict XVI')[3] to POV descriptions like 'Picture speaks better than words',[4] and 'Picture says it all'[5]. At one point you even entitled the picture 'John Zizioulas (black robe) revealing his true face and position',[6] and you once claimed that your name-changing was to ensure NPOV.[7] Hardly 'disgraceful' or 'malicious' editing on my part.

Since therefore you are incorrect in your accusations of 'lies', 'open lies', 'disgrace' and 'malice', please retract these.Seminarist 15:46, March 5, 2008 (PST)

Your attempt to hide true face of that man is malicious. All statements about your falsehood remain. Cebactokpatop 08:29, March 6, 2008 (PST)

Warning regarding posting warnings about users based on their behaviour on Wikipedia

OrthodoxWiki and Wikipedia are far from the same thing. Aside from similar look and the community-edits idea, OrthodoxWiki has basically nothing to do with Wikipedia. Not that WP is a bad place, simply that it's not OW. Previous attacks and wars are less relevant here, and this is certainly not the place to continue WP:Honesty and Good Faith (in either sense of the word) arguments.

This article is unbalanced, and that is plain to see. Usually, editors show a great emphasis on the life of a subject, rather than theology (particularly when the subject is a living person and not a saint especially noted for theological works). It would be helpful to not reduce the life of a metropolitan of the ecumenical throne to ~six dot points, and would assuage criticism of a user's intent. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 15:28, March 5, 2008 (PST)

Removal of Leithart/Papanikolaou

I removed the reference to works by Peter Leithart and Aristotle Papanikolaou in that neither author sees their remarks as criticism of Metropolitan John's work. --Fr Lev 19:46, March 5, 2008 (PST)

Good point (from the WP talk page, this was seen as a criticism based solely on Lossky being a traditionalist touchstone - good spotting), but I think it can be used as a balance - hence the annotation to the study. Thanks! — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 20:02, March 5, 2008 (PST)

I put this back in since it's an interested academic article relevant to theological discussion. — FrJohn (talk) 02:46, May 21, 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing positive appraisals as "criticism"

Trying to depict the book by Papanikolaou and the article by Leithart as criticism of Metropolitan John is like saying that a book promoting Nicene orthodoxy "may be read as criticism by Arians." It's simply a gratuitous attempt to slur Metropolitan John's work, which both Papanikolaou and Leithart regard highly. --Fr Lev 10:07, March 6, 2008 (PST)

Moderators -- help!

This is getting downright silly. This is one of those examples where someone has an axe to grind (in this case, against Metropolitan John) and he or she will keep changing the article to paint as bad a picture as they can of the subject in question. While I agree that Lossky's work represents a synthesis of patristic theology, it is absurd to claim that it is the only orthodox synthesis. The poster seems convinced that if Metropolitan John's theology differs from Lossky's, then it is heterodox to that same degree. He has taken a book of an Orthodox theologian and an article by a Reformed pastor (although I can't imagine why an ultra-traditionalist Orthodox would bother quoting a Protestant!) that are both very favorable to Metropolitan John's work, and portrayed them as "implicit" criticism because it acknowledges that Metropolitan John's work differs from Lossky's. Lossky was a kind man who even valued the good he found in Western tradition; I think he would be appalled by the libel against Metropolitan John that is being associated with his good name. When posters such as him get their way, it undermines the value of OrthodoxWiki as a neutral point of view. It's one think to provide a link to other sources that wish to libel a respected Orthodox hierarch and theologian; it's quite another to let him keep posting his polemical attacks in the article itself. My personal POV favors Lossky, but I find this constant sniping at Metropolitan John to be scurrilous. --Fr Lev 10:53, March 6, 2008 (PST)

If you said: "Lossky was a kind man who even valued the good he found in Western tradition", and you know that I regard Prof. Lossky, why did you question my use of the Protestant source? As i stated earlier, I do not have a problem if you, or someone else, add references to positive assessments, in order to make the article balanced. However, missing positive assessments should not be barrier for adding academic criticisms. What could be the resolution is to add banner on the top of the page stating that page work is in progress. Finally, you should get used to the fact that the person you find "respected Orthodox hierarch and theologian" is not regarded as such in a Church as a whole. Part of the Church finds him being: lamentable, muddled, etc. Cebactokpatop 11:22, March 6, 2008 (PST)

I don't sense the generous spirit in you that I find in Lossky. Leithart's article does not imply criticism, even though you infer it. It is nonsense to say that Leithart's approval of Metropolitan John's theology is a criticism -- it is, as I wrote before, like saying that a book promoting Nicene orthodoxy as a good thing could be construed as criticizing Nicene orthodoxy -- by an Arian. Such topsy-turvy "reasoning" is antithetical to the spirit of the encyclopedia. --Fr Lev 12:37, March 6, 2008 (PST)

What you sense does not matter. What matters is the fact that there are numerous academic sources of criticism that are growing in numbers every day. I am about to pull out even more of them. Whether you like or not the fact that Mr. Leithart pointed to the difference between Lossky and J.Z. is irrelevant as well. I have explained why his article serves as criticism besides his possible positive assessments. Encyclopedia is not supposed to promote someone’s private ideas, and that includes private ideas of J.Z. as well. Public people are subject to positive and negative criticisms. That is the fact. Please work on adding positive ones, instead of constant complaint about negative ones that are already displayed.

One interesting observation though… Amongst followers of J.Z., I find similar behavior as in those people following some gurus, who get personally offended on every possible suspicion about falsehood of their gurus.

Protection

This article has been reverted and protected. Please place all suggested changes on this Talk page, where sysops can incorporate them into the article. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 13:32, March 6, 2008 (PST)

You reverting before protection reveal your siding with one side in the dispute. Such a behavior is inappropriate for a sysop. Current version of the article is not acceptable for the following reasons:

No valid academic reasons for denouncing the article of the Italian magazine were provided. All reasoning mentioned were private in nature, and do not represent valid academic basis for removal.

Article of Mr. Leithart appears to be twofold:

Study of the work of J.Z.

Implied criticism as it points to differences between theologies of Prof. Lossky and J.Z. Both aspects of the article should be mentioned on the page. How? I am open to suggestions. I have tried two approaches, and both were rejected by the other party. I will let the other party propose the way of mentioning the second aspect...

There is a need for minor change on the sentence that is trying to minimize the criticisms with inappropriate wording that is POV in nature.

Just as a note: What behavior is "inappropriate for a sysop" will be determined by the administration, ultimately headed up by FrJohn. In general, though, Pistevo's long-standing reputation on OrthodoxWiki is, as yet, unimpeachable. You would be wise not to cast yourself in an adversarial light regarding him or the other sysops. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 07:17, March 14, 2008 (PDT)

There is no implied criticism in Pastor Leithart's article. There are not two "aspects." Lossky is not the standard for evaluating all other work. There have been a number of important 20th century Orthodox theologians, and they disagreed on some matters -- Lossky is different from Staniloae, who is different from Florovsky, who is different from Romanides, etc. All of these men were fully Orthodox and well-regarded. The kind of bizarre logic being used by Cebactokpatop would rate a flunking grade in my introduction to logic class, and it wouldn't pass muster for a peer-reviewed, academic journal. I'm thinking of both his attempt to spin a favorable article into a critical one (see my analogy about a book promoting Nicene orthodoxy) and his simplistic syllogistic reasoning -- 1. Lossky is THE synthesis of Orthodox patristic theology. 2. Zizioulas disagrees with Lossky about something. Therefore, 3. Zizioulas is heterodox. I can't decide which is worse -- the specious logic or the attempt to dress it up as somehow "academic." --Fr Lev 05:41, March 7, 2008 (PST)

Your attitude does not comply with academic attire. Your rhetoric either. Your focus on how to discredit my unworthy individual (person), instead on the subject of our dispute, reveals weakness in your argument. Your analogy you keep repeating is good for laughter only. My simplistic reasoning goes hand in hand with the reasoning Savior used in order to make his teaching so simple that even uneducated fishermen could understand him. And I do not have to pass muster for any academic journal. Simplicism I chose to use can not be accepted by Pharisees. They were always “too high” for simple fishermen. One thing I will teach you here... Florovsky made his mistakes. Staniloae too. Lossky too. All man made mistakes, but One. The difference between acceptance and rejection in the Church is not in the mistakes they have made, but in the overall harm those mistakes made in the Church. When mistakes amount to the level where man in question starts braking Church' canons, we know that he had went ashtray, without need to read any of his writings.

I would propose you to start putting down valid academic reasons for your arguments rather than your personal opinion on what grade certain logic would have in your introductory classes.

Just a reminder that we are each approaching Forgiveness Sunday. Another difference from Wikipedia is that users of OrthodoxWiki are definitely urged to pray for one another, especially in difficult and frustrating circumstances. Rather than attempt to delve into theology myself, or into the discussion of this page, in looking through some of the articles related to Metr. John's writings, I found some links which do not seem to be currently included in the article. I will include them here so that they may be considered for appropriate inclusion at a later time.

Fr Andrew Louth, in addition to being a distinguished patristics scholar, is a Russian Orthodox priest. When moderators are ready to modify the article, I wish to recommend adding a reply to the Turcescu article. It is Aristotle Papanikolaou, "Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu" in Modern Theology 20:4 (October 2004), 601-607. It argues that Metropolitan John's theology is consistent with that of the Fathers, and that Turescu has missed the mark by attacking Metrop. John on how to read St Gregory of Nyssa, whom the latter rarely cites. Instead, Metrop. John has relied more clearly on St Gregory the Theologian. --Fr Lev 14:41, March 13, 2008 (PDT)

Vote for INCLUSION. These are academic sources - I know that Frs Andrew Louth and John Chryssavgis are both highly qualified to speak academically (Fr Andrew, if memory recalls, is an Oxford professor; Fr John, an Oxford grad., lectures/ed at Holy Cross, and was the Sub-Dean at St Andrew's, Sydney). I would do it myself if I weren't, much to my distaste, named as being one of the 'parties' in this discussion... — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 14:47, March 13, 2008 (PDT)

Fr Andrew is currently a professor at Durham, but did teach at London and Oxford. --Fr Lev 19:32, March 13, 2008 (PDT)

Oh sure... you will find here and there some Orthodox who fell into the pit, dug up by the man in question. Let’s add to the above list Mr. Leithart, yet another Protestant, who, you said, is praising his work...

One question for you folks... I was trying to find biography of J.Z. with the details like when he became monk, in which monastery has he served, when ordained to deaconate, priesthood and finally to episcopate... and failed. Do you know where that information can be found?

A word of caution to Cebactokpatop: It seems pretty clear that you have an agenda to push with regard to Metr. John. In our experience on OrthodoxWiki, agendas are bad for the encyclopedia. The tone of your language, particularly the sarcasm and the seeming need that you have to discredit Metr. John, all seem to point in the agenda direction.

The facts are that Metr. John is not generally regarded in Orthodox circles as holding heretical views. (Indeed, he is very highly regarded.) Now, whether he is a heretic or not is subject to the appropriate authorities (which OrthodoxWiki and its editors, including you, are not). In any event, if criticism of him is to be mentioned, it should only be as an ancillary portion of this article, since it really is only a minority, non-mainstream opinion.

Cebactokpatop, if you persist in the approach you've taken thus far on OrthodoxWiki to this article, I am afraid you will find yourself frustrated, since the management simply isn't going to give it free rein. I hope that's clear. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 06:38, March 14, 2008 (PDT)

That you think any of us are "defending" him is telling. That you cite the usual barbs from the Moscow Patriarchate (in its ongoing rivalry with Constantinople) is also telling (and hardly encyclopedic for this article). I also wonder why it is you insist on calling him "J.Z."

In any event, I'm not sure what we're "waiting" for. Biographical information would certainly be welcome in this article, since it's decidedly short on it. And, yes, I do not know offhand where such information may be found. I hardly have a reference library handy in my office.

In any event, consider yourself cautioned. Please take a different approach with this article. It may actually be of benefit if you were to work on some other articles instead, ones about which you may not have such strong personal feelings. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 07:13, March 14, 2008 (PDT)

Barbs? Heheheh... Moscow Patriarchate where Orthodoxy flourishes has to "barb", while Constantinople Patriarchate where Orthodoxy steadily keeps shrinking, has to go and seek help from US against Turkish authorities... I often wonder who finances their affairs and frequent travels around the globe when they have close to none any flock in that see. Cebactokpatop 12:15, March 14, 2008 (PDT)